Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

An anonymous reader writes "Synthia Tan writes that when you investigate the actual data, controlling for non-gender factors (like number of hours worked) the gender pay gap seems to disappear. 'A longitudinal study of female engineers in the 1980s showed a wage penalty of essentially zero.' In some cases women make more than men: women who work between 30 and 39 hours a week make 111% of what their male counterparts make." The researchers were studying more recent data, too; what are things like on this front where you work?

I may get accused of being a sexist and all for saying this, but it's been my experience that a feminist vision of "equality" is very different from my definition. "Equality" in their mind is getting all the perks of being a woman (men fawning over you and buying you free food and drinks, sexual power, the taboo on physically attacking you, etc.) while simultaneously also getting all the perks of being a man (higher breadwinner pay, political power, etc.)--and all without having to suffer ANY of the downsides of either gender.

In short, they want it ALL, they want it NOW, and they want it all for FREE.

Why on Earth would anyone accuse you of being a sexist merely on the basis of your making sweeping generalizations about what you think an entire gender group means by "equality", based on your limited experience with a few members of that group? Ridiculous. Bloody feminazis demanding that individuals be treated as individuals. Don't they realize how much easier it is just to relax with a bunch of inaccurate preconceptions?

Why on Earth would anyone accuse you of being a sexist merely on the basis of your making sweeping generalizations about what you think an entire gender group means by "equality", based on your limited experience with a few members of that group?

Feminist = entire gender group?

Bloody feminazis demanding that individuals be treated as individuals.

Might want to actually try seeing what these people are saying because it's about as far from that as one can get.

The fundamental principle of feminism is that woman are morally equal to men. Logically the entire female gender consists of either people who believe themselves morally inferior to men, or are feminists.

I don't think I've ever seen feminism described in that way. The second statement does not form a valid dichotomy - even if I accepted your definition there is clearly absolutely no reason women could not see themselves as morally superior to men therefore invalidating this statement.

Meanwhile the fundamental principle of sexism (and racism, ageism, etc.) is that you are taking some empirical data (generally gathered informally) and extrapolating it to the entire gender (/race/age) group.

No. A -ism simply is a discrimination on the principle property in question. It may or may not be justified by anything - i.e. validity is irrelevent other than if you care about those things. A valid statement that is sexist is still valid even if one wishes to classify it as morally problematic.

An example of this would be mischaracterizing feminism per se, a basic principle agreed on by - for the sake of argument - all women, as an extreme viewpoint held by a small but vocal minority.

In other words: No True Scotsman has sugar in his porridge. I can only go by what people say. For a group of people who better characterise what you sum up feminists as Humanists would be a good choice.

OP expected to be called a sexist for making a fundamentally sexist remark, and I did so.

It's a fundamentally feminist-ist remark - not based on sex. By your definition above he is applying not to the entire set of women but the entire set of women who are feminists. These sets are not equal.

The real question here is why are you arguing with me, for calling him on his sexism, and not him, for being blatantly and admittedly and unapologetically sexist?

Because even if he is sexist, because even if sexism is a priori a moral evil, a clear reading of his statement is directed towards a feminist perspective, not a female one, regardless of whether or not you accept it as a valid one or a strawman.

No. A -ism simply is a discrimination on the principle property in question.

That's bullshit. "Racism" is an (incorrect) theory that there are intrinsic differences between races that make some inferior and some superior. "Feminism" is a political movement to increase the power of women. Neither term refers to discrimination. "Socialism" is another political movement with different goals. The only -ism I can think of that is about discrimination is "ageism". The suffix "-ism" has no consistent meaning, and

> The fundamental principle of feminism is that woman are morally equal to men.

The problem with this is that it's like prattling on about the fundamental principles of the Republican or Democratic parties. What these people say they believe and how they actually act are two entirely different things.

Ragging on feminists is not "sexism". It's strictly an ideological remark. It's not about gender. It's about a particular political faction with a certain name.

What you are trying to do is elevate feminists above criticism by smearing anyone that tries to criticize. It's kind of exactly the sort of thing the OP was complaining about.

So out of curiosity, how many women have you dated who wanted to go dutch on dates? Didn't expect you to buy them flowers or jewelry? Didn't want you to open doors for them? Didn't expect you to protect them in a fight?

Be honest now, Mr. Inaccurate Preconceptions. Show us evil sexists that we're soooo wrong, with all your stories of the women you've known who *really* wanted to be treated equally.

So out of curiosity, how many women have you dated who wanted to go dutch on dates? Didn't expect you to buy them flowers or jewelry? Didn't want you to open doors for them? Didn't expect you to protect them in a fight?

Not the person you're replying to, but I felt I should step in here...

My wife always paid her fair share when we dated. I honestly felt a little uncomfortable about it at first, but she insisted.

She loves it when I buy her flowers and jewellery, but she'll buy me stuff I like too; so that seems even to me.

I'll hold doors open for her, and she is happy that I do. But she'll hold doors open for me too, and I'm happy that she does.

She most certainly would expect me to defend her in a fight; but equally, I'd expect her to defend me in one. (neither of us is particularly physically inclined, but we're also not really the types to get in to fights; so thus far it hasn't been a situation that has arisen)

Basically my point is that just because a woman expects some things from the guy, it doesn't mean she's asking for unequal treatment... she may be willing to do all those same things too.

Actually, all of the women I have dated have been like that. For that matter most of the women I know are like that. The ones you describe are more creations of men in internet forums telling other men how women are.

There is still the social expectation that the man must make money but the woman is free to sit on her butt and atrophy. This disparity is rather widespread in those demographics where it's economically feasible.

These expectations (and other differences between the sexes in terms of social indoctrination) help feed into the labor statistics.

Actually, all of the women I have dated have been like that. For that matter most of the women I know are like that. The ones you describe are more creations of men in internet forums telling other men how women are.

While anyone saying women never pay is being ridiculous, so is anyone saying most women pay their own way while dating. The first site that popped up in a Google search showed that 83% of women either don't offer to pay or only offer with the expectation that the offer will be turned down. Unless you are using a dating site while filtering on liberal women, or dating inside a small circle of friends with a very liberal mindset, it is unlikely that you are going to come across many women who are willing to a

Not gonna say you're sexist, just that you hang out with bad women. What you've just described is the typical gal who hangs out in a bar waiting for Prince Charming to come along and pay her way through life. My sister was one such woman, and I viewed her as a negative role model. If a woman is hanging out in a bar trying to meet guys, it's because she's a boring person and doesn't have anything else better to do with her life. Women with actual hobbies and interests have no trouble finding men (which is why they're taken), and they tend to be nicer people overall.

I may get accused of being a sexist and all for saying this, but it's been my experience that a feminist vision of "equality" is very different from my definition. "Equality" in their mind is getting all the perks of being a woman (men fawning over you and buying you free food and drinks, sexual power, the taboo on physically attacking you, etc.) while simultaneously also getting all the perks of being a man (higher breadwinner pay, political power, etc.)--and all without having to suffer ANY of the downsides of either gender.

In short, they want it ALL, they want it NOW, and they want it all for FREE.

well, speaking as a man, i also want to get paid as much money as i can, be fawned over, and get free food all while not being physically attacked.

I know a lot of women who have self-identified as feminists for years, and not a single one of them fits the description you have. All the feminists I know are hard-working professional women, hard-working homemakers, or both. That includes some of my peers and managers in the tech field, by the way. Maybe you've just been spending time with some unusually selfish women -- it's possible; there are jerks of both genders out there. I suggest finding a different peer group, because your current one seems t

Honestly (and this is just my opinion), I don't think women want to look at it as "effort/time put in = money". They see the position, it is basically the same "tier" for a man and a woman, and the woman makes less. Never mind that particular man may have worked X more years and puts in Y extra hours.

My ex wanted me to be prince charming, yet claimed I was too insensitive when she started talking to me with disrespect or accusing me of being incompetent or not smart enough to "properly" shingle a roof. She expected me to help out or do most of the "traditional female chores", and do all the "man chores", while we both worked full time and had a child. Not to mention she expected me to be happy in a relationship where she didn't put out, and spent far more than we could afford. She was a well educated, intelligent, good looking, had hobbies and interests, modern woman. We are both 130+ IQs, she had 2 bachelors and I had 1 (though I make 2x what she made). She left looking for something better and has spent the past 5 years saying how there are no good men out there. Even had the balls to say that to my parents. All of her friends are the same way. They take their children with them and expect as much money as they can squeeze out of their ex's. That is the modern view of "equality".
Meanwhile I remarried the most opposite person I could find...someone who enjoys taking on traditional female rolls, enjoys being a wife, enjoys taking care of a man, is not lazy in the least bit (though is also educated, has a bachelors in biochem and speaks 3 languages fluently). The budget is balanced even with my ex getting child support and my wife isn't working. I know this relationship will last, because she is not a feminist.

It's not just feminist who are this way, but all special interest groups. Everybody claims they want equal treatment, but in reality what they want is preferential treatment. And the ones who get screwed over are those who belong to the formerly dominate class, but never leveraged this dominance for themselves, who now find themselves at a disadvantage because of the "equalization" that has taken place. As a straight white male in the United States, I can't compete equally with my minority peers, I have to be better than them. Otherwise, with all other quantifiable characteristics being equal, they will get the jobs & services I want.

Where the hell are you working/hanging out where it's ok for *men* to be physically attacked?

Are you seriously going to pretend that punching a woman in anger is no more taboo in modern Western society than punching another man? Seriously?

Maybe not, but in our culture it is typically portrayed as perfectly acceptable for a woman to slap a man, or physically attack him in other ways (throwing drinks, etc.). There are really good, legitimate reasons for this double-standard, based on average strength / power differences, so I'm not necessarily against this. It is never considered acceptable for a man that feels insulted to respond with a physical attack, so to be fair it should not be considered acceptable for a woman to do so, either.

Employers, especially today, have loyalty only to their money; their profit margins; their bottom lines. It doesn't actually fit that there would be institutionalized sexism if only because it is not the most profitable way to do things. All of these "-isms" are lies. Who profits from the lies? Turns out a lot of people do. Look to the budgets and pay of SPLC leadership among others. These non-profits are very expensive to run.

It would seem that ideal economics would do away with discrimination, but it doesn't seem to do so. I think the problem is that the assumption of perfect decision making on the part of management is false. Especially in high tech fields, it can be very difficult to judge the real productivity of workers. With a lack of clear quantifiable metrics, managers need to fall back on their intuition. Intuition is easily skewed by bias.

If the business situation were static, over a very long time the companies tha

I know, troll. But I'm serious. It's a factor in manpower planning, especially in smaller teams.

Jeesuz.. are you indoctrinated with political correctness or are you just prematurely trying to fend off flames? I've worked with many female engineers and scientists, and was married to one for nearly 20 years.

Three biggest factors I see:

1. Women stop to have children, and the *may* come back to the work force. Many never do, so there aren't as many females in senior paying positions.

The next two are anecdotes I've noticed over my own career that seem to be a constant theme (e.g. I legitimately think there's a trend):

2. Women are weaker negotiators during the hiring and raise/evaluation phases. While there are some monster bitches out there, they're not called the 'fairer sex' for nothing. Men are much more likely to take a stand and risk their job for what they deem to be 'fair'.

3. Women get sick of the engineering work environment, the lack of personal fulfillment, and say 'to hell with this, I'm out of here".

I haven't even heard of a study that says there is a significant wage gap for at least a decade. When accounting for career, hours worked, experience, etc. the worst I have heard is a 3% wage gap. When you factor in that women are known to negotiate less for salary the gap probably disappears completely.

The focus now needs to be on why women don't enter as many high paying fields (and whether that is even a problem at all). Focusing on the wage gap is pretty silly now.

The focus now needs to be on why women don't enter as many high paying fields (and whether that is even a problem at all).

I think a big part of it is that those jobs tend to come with a shitty work/life balance and cultures that encourage crazy hours (especially in engineering type positions). Women tend to be more into the work/life balance and tend to have more time obligations outside of work (kids being the big one).

The only other argument that makes any sense to me is established culture, which kinda ties into that. An office full of mostly guys is going to have a very guy culture, same as an office full of women is going to have a women culture. All the little silly office stuff on it's own probably doesn't matter, but collectively I could see it making a job unappealing. I have a hard time listening to a female coworker talk about her kids for like a half hour at lunch.. an office filled with women who do this constantly would probably drive me insane, so I can see the reverse being true.

Kids are only a bigger obligation for women because society expects them to do the majority of care and household work, even when they have full time jobs. If that weren't true, then you would see dads having the same problem and working less hours.

All the social progress in the world can't defeat the fact that there in most cases there is a much stronger maternal bond between a mother and her child than between the father and his child. This is not just a human thing, but is seen pretty consistently in nature as well.

The guy donated some genetic material. The woman had the thing grow inside them for 9 months. Who's gonna be more connected? Not saying the guy shouldn't be legally obligated to have the same level of responsibility for the kid as th

There's quite a lot of dispute that there was ever a gender based wage gap. Reading Dorothy Dix from the 20s and 30s, she seemed to think that men and women were compensated equivalently at that time, and earlier. Which if you think about it makes sense, if a company could hire one gender for less, why wouldn't they hire that gender exclusively?

Given that, why is the POTUS parroting these myths? Is he planning to mandate higher wages for women and quotas when employers are unwilling to hire these more expensive employees or what?

The most amusing thing about President Obama going on about gender pay inequality is that one of the few places where it is significant is one of the places where he has the most control over it, White House staff. There have been several reports that women who work at the White House are paid significantly less than men working at the White House, even when they are filling the same role.

Given that, why is the POTUS parroting these myths? Is he planning to mandate higher wages for women and quotas when employers are unwilling to hire these more expensive employees or what?

No, it's pure politics. He's part of the Dem team, and they are currently having a lot of successes using social issues to divide the electorate. As long as they can keep the people thinking the other team is conducting a "war on women" and would support policies to oppress the female gender, they can get people to vote for them. Just because he doesn't have another election, doesn't mean he can't see the benefits in having more of his own "team members" in congress.

Play this video instead, an interview with Thomas Sowell from it looks like the 60s, where he's saying exactly the same thing as is apparently being "discovered" these days: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]

I don't have the time to access his research, but he's saying the exact same thing as most people are saying right here - once you control for education, experience, hours worked and so on, the gender pay gap basically vanishes. I don't see why it should be any less believable back then than today.

And this, incidentally, is critical thinking; challenging the accepted narrative when new information comes to light.

My life experience? The women beside me have always made pretty much the same money I have made. Two enlistments in the Navy - an E1 made the same pay as another E1, without respect to age, color, religion, ethnicity, OR gender. An E5 made the same money as another E5, etc. I earned a nice chunk of change for sea pay, which few women had any access to back then - but that has changed today.

As a truck driver, I was paid either percentage of load, or paid by the mile. The women drivers out there made the same percentage, or the same cents per mile - just like any other driver, regardless of age, ethnicity, race, cultural or religious background.

In construction, ditto. A journeyman carpenter draws journeyman carpenter's wages, a first class helper draws first class helper wages, and a master carpenter draws master carpenter's wages, and no one cares about your hairstyle, or what you might wear off the job, or how many kids you have, or whether you delivered those kids yourself.

I've been in the workforce for - uhhhmmm - 42 years now. At no point in time have I ever worked beside a woman who did the same work I did, but made less money than I.

Wait - that's a slightly inaccurate statement. Seniority counts. I've worked beside a number of women who made MORE than I, because they tend to be more stable in their employment. I've often been junior to a woman. She takes a job, she likes it, and she stays on that job for decades. Me? Hell, I've changed careers a number of times. I've never had seniority anywhere. So, yeah, women often make MORE money than I.

The work that appeals to me usually pays better than the work that appeals to MOST women - but I've not seen or been privy to any actual barriers to women doing the same work I do. I have zero desire to be a waiter, only slightly more desire to be a nurse, or nurses' aid, or an orderly. I've cooked, but I don't want to cook anymore. I don't want to work in child care, or senior care. Women often LIKE those jobs, I don't.

I think the world is less sexist than a lot of people THINK it is. Or, the US is less sexist than you claim.

"I haven't even heard of a study that says there is a significant wage gap for at least a decade. When accounting for career, hours worked, experience, etc. the worst I have heard is a 3% wage gap."

Hours worked is where I've seen the numbers most distorted. Most studies I've seen talking about pay gap don't account for hours and are based on the premise that most women in opposite sex relationships still opt to take on the role of picking up kids from school and such instead of their partner and so do less hours, but as this is omitted from the study the claim is made that they're paid less. Certainly in the UK few studies seem to take in hours worked, most just take the sex, the profession, and the annual salary and do nothing more than that.

So the issue of disparity in most cases is that in most couples it's still the female that is taking on the role of housewife but this is entirely a choice between couples and not a workplace problem in the slightest beyond the fact that this also impacts womens career progression because statistically you're more likely to know the company better the more hours you spend there, and hence be a more suitable candidate for promotion, hence why women are less likely to be promoted - because they're also more likely to be less committed to work and more committed to home.

The fact is some feminists want women to be able to take the housewife option, do less hours, AND still get paid as much as their male colleagues working longer hours and it's this that distorts the argument and makes the whole discussion nonsensical most of the time.

I don't pretend sexism doesn't exist and isn't a problem, I've certainly witnessed women suffer sexism in the workplace and have called it out when I've seen it, though I've also witnessed women abuse their sexual attractiveness to gain promotion with stupid sexually desperate male bosses too so I'm not overly convinced those two things don't balance out and I believe both need to be eliminated as far as possible.

The real key issue is getting a better balance between males and females that act as home makers vs. breadwinners if we want to see things balance out. Heeding calls for quotas based on statistically fraudulent studies that omit things that make it like for like such as hours worked though simply build resentment and have the opposite effect of making members of each sex view each other equally in the workplace.

In STEM for example, there is a huge push over "WE NEED TO HIRE MORE FEMALE STEM WORKERS". This is of course, absurd. The STEM industry doesn't need more women anymore than it needs more men. STEM needs more qualified human beings capable of doing the job.

In many societies including Canada and the US, starting at a young age, men and women are encouraged to go down certain career paths.

You basically gave the exact reason why wanting to create more female STEM workers is not absurd. You admit we want more qualified human beings capable of doing the job. Then you admit we encourage women into certain career paths. So if we are guiding women into non-STEM careers, we are removing a large portion of the population from the training necessary to be capable of doing STEM jobs. That is the problem our society is trying to solve by creating more female STEM workers.

I've been discriminated against because of both my gender and my religion, but I have NEVER been paid less than my male colleagues. I may not have had the opportunities to grow given to me, but I've always made good money.
In my current job I'm one of the highest paid people on my contract. My personal experience is that there's no pay gap - do your job and get paid accordingly,.

My wife has experienced gender discrimination also. Most recently, our power company was coming by to do some work on a pole behind our house. They wanted to pull a giant truck up our neighbor's narrow driveway (right up against our house), onto our lawn, reach it over our garage, and do the work. When my wife voiced concerns about hitting the house with the truck, the guy actually said to her "So you're worried about your house because you're a woman?" Yet, when I expressed those same concerns a bit la

When my wife voiced concerns about hitting the house with the truck, the guy actually said to her "So you're worried about your house because you're a woman?" Yet, when I expressed those same concerns a bit later, they treated me like an actual homeowner concerned about his house.

1. That hardly makes any sense, but okay.

2. Your wife and you have an extremely low bar for sexual discrimination.

So by your rather sensitive standards, every time I hear "You're not a woman - you couldn't understand", or "Men are pigs", then would that not be discrimination? Or about some feminine hygiene product being superior because it was invented by a female doctor? All of that is just more ways of saying "men are inferior".

We see this sort of thing all the time, but have been conditioned to the idea that only men are ever sexist.

Point 1, while I agree does happen, more often than naught, doesn't quite fit the topic of discussion.Point 2, you have nothing to compare too.

As a woman, I have seen my own fair share of discrimination, but I know it exists under the surface and I go out of my way to try to prove myself. The study in this article does show a trend of hiring and pay practices in particular fields to show little to no discrimination; however in other fields such as a stock broker, or other high-paying fields, women don't fa

I have 2 junior engineers and 2 engineers-in-training working for me. One of each sex (like Noah's Ark really) and men and women in each job class are paid the same. I have one senior guy who is paid more, but he has 25 years in the field and a lot more knowledge and skills.

New EITs for us are at the same rate, but we actually see women accelerate faster. Unfortunately, they seem to catch on to the whole live/work balance faster than men which makes retention harder and flattens wages. On a case-by-case basis, it comes down to work output.

Right now though, we could pay a 40% premium for an exceptional female mechanical PE with 15-20 years of experience, but that is definately an outlier.

Facts can be very annoying to people with strong convictions. Generally, they solve this by denying them and questioning the inetegrity of the messengers.

They could also solve it by attacking the methodology. Is it really fair to correct for "hours worked" rather than "work done"? So the guys get paid more, but it is okay because they stick around till 9pm playing Minecraft and reading Slashdot.

Agreed. But this study assumes that "hours worked" is a meaningful measure. If Jane and John are equally skilled engineers, and Jane works 40 hours per week, and John works 80 hours per week, then it is likely that John will get more done. But it is unlikely that he will get twice as much done.

An engineer should be able to do two things:1. Come up with good ideas.2. Implement those ideas.Working longer hours can help with #2, but doesn't help much with #1.

When you control for species, there are no differences between humans and lizards.

It's good that sexual discrimination legislation has (mostly) sorted out the problem of women not being paid the same for equal work. That doesn't change the fact that, on the whole, there's a salary gap. As the linked article points out, some big factors out of this are the fact that women tend to leave their jobs more early, to have more intermittent commitments to work. The article seems quite content to leave the imp

Much more relevant would be an examination of why women are more likely to have this lack of commitment, and whether e.g. bullying in the work place, or unfavourable maternity/paternity leave arrangements are contributing to this.

That is a good point, but as usuall, the most likely but least obvious possibility is ignored: Sometimes called work/life-balance, but maybe women just don't see a point in taking part in that life-long pissing contest that "career" in our corporate world became? If that guy next to you does 10 hours of unpaid overtime to impress his manager, you're doing 12, right? The people deciding about promotions like that kind of commitment. And so on.

What you're not considering though is that, in order for that guy to be able to do 10 hours of unpaid overtime, he has to have a wife at home willing to do all the child care and house work, even if she also has a full time job. It is societally expected that women will do that for a husband, so they are able to do crazy things like that. Of course, he might not have a family, but that situation is not in the majority. Most men have families and their wife picks up the slack at home.

I was considering that, but tried to focus on another question: WHY do that 10hours overtime at all?

Perhaps there is a "female" solution like: "I'm making enough for me and my family, I'd rather spend those 10 hours with them and leave that rat race to those guys who seem to enjoy it." Sometimes the only way to win a pissing contest is not to play. (And if you're honest, thermonuclear war is only a very violent form of a pissing contest. But that's another movie)

I agree 100%. I don't think the solution is to make women work more horrible jobs, but increase the quality of life for everyone by refusing to be exploited. One thing that people don't think about is that increasing the number of women in a particular field forces management to change their policies in ways that help everyone.

I agree 100%. I don't think the solution is to make women work more horrible jobs, but increase the quality of life for everyone by refusing to be exploited.

Oh yes.. nice idea. The problem is, that this goes against the average male ego. For some reason, competition is a defining male quality. (probably due to all the reproduction stuff, but why doesn't matter here)

Who can run faster, who can drink more, who can bang his head harder against a stone wall. And of course who can lift more weight, who can carry more meat from A to B. That is already a "who can work harder". Society only rewards this with "Who can make more money", so it can exploit that trait. And

That doesn't change the fact that, on the whole, there's a salary gap. As the linked article points out, some big factors out of this are the fact that women tend to leave their jobs more early, to have more intermittent commitments to work. The article seems quite content to leave the implication that, basically, this means that it's all the fault of women for just not caring about their career enough.

It isn't legislation or litigation that changed things, it is the fundamental workforce demographics. For most families, being a "stay at home mom" isn't an option. Early legislation may have ensured that hostile workplace factors were taken out of the equation, which would have made a meaningful difference, but the balance is largely time.

As for the resulting pay gap factors, it is pretty hard for anyone who works from 22-30, takes 6 years off, works again from 36-48 half time, and then works full time f

Well, I think the study is still interesting. Because we still often hear that women are paid less for the same job. That study essentially proves it wrong. Before you can fix a problem, you first need to understand where it comes from. From this study, the problem does not come from discrimination in the hiring process. And this is good news.

Of course anyone who has looked into the actual data has already discovered the amazing level of lies directed at the male in our society - and keeping him 2nd class. Just ask yourself - just how hard and how long did you have to work to earn your shot at reproduction.. and your sister? Did she just have to find some guy to enslave (18-24 years).. that's the level or parity we have. Open eyes please.

As a manger in the tech field, I state for the record there is no pay gap. Starting pay is based on someone’s ability to negotiate and raises are based on skill.
As far as a pay difference over all, a recent study says the entire pay gap is easily explained by choices of work. Women historically have selected employment that pays less. Teachers make less than engineers. The percentage of women in the teaching field is higher as is the percentage of men in the engineering field. Thus, if averaged just men vs women, men on average make more (in that example). However drawing that as a conclusion is erroneous, so people just need to get over themselves and do their best.

If I could hire females with the same qualifications, same productivity, and willing to work the same hours why would I hire a male if I could pay females 75%? We could cut payroll by 25% by just hiring women. I believe that misogyny exists, but i doubt it would be enough to increase payroll by 25%. Even the most misogynistic business owner would hire just females to save on costs. Since this isn't the case, we know women are not being paid less than their male counterparts generally.

I was under the impression that one of the issue was that women are less likely to get offered exciting projects, overtime, etc. etc. so they wind up stuck in relatively junior positions doing limited hours.

They get offered all that at first but company stops asking after constant rejections. Young women, at least from my personal experience, are more focused on things outside of their career. There were several female co-workers who were more talented than me but unlike them I was willing to put in more hours to deal with problems at work. Last I heard one of them now runs a Yoga studio and another went back to school for PhD.

But it's a chicken and egg scenario isn't it? are women doing limited hours because they're not getting offered exciting projects, or are they not getting offered exciting projects because they're doing limited hours as they've made a choice with their partner to be the one that goes home early to collect the kids from school?

I suspect you're right, but the underlying cause of that discrepancy is still not so clear cut.

If you actually look at how much work is done and actual years worked (not just age) etc. the gap disappears. Actually, according to the summary here there *is* a gap as women get paid more. I'm sure the feminists and looney lefters will want to fix this new problem. Not.

The problem is that you are controlling for things that actually do matter. Why are women less likely to work long hours? Because if you have a family, it is societally expected that the wife will pick up the slack in order for the husband to work longer. Look at any "high powered" man with a family and you will find that situation. Even if the wife has a full time job, she still has to do the majority of the work at home. It is not acceptable for a woman to work more and a husband to do the house work

Even if the wife has a full time job, she still has to do the majority of the work at home.

Says who?

I remember when I first read about these issues, 30 years ago, one of the surveys claiming that women did the majority of work at home, counted exterior house maintenance, yard maintenance, and car maintenance as mens' hobbies instead of work at thome.

Says the pigeonhole principle. If the man is working 80 hours weeks he doesn't physically have time to do the work at home. Those situations are common for men, but women cannot afford to do overtime because they don't have a safety net to take care of the work at home.

Bob works for me, and he puts in 60 hours / week when needed, 50 hours average. His wife, Sally, works for a competing company, you. She leaves at 3:00 to pick up the kid from school. Are you going to pay Sally as much as I pay Bob, because she has a good excuse? As your competition, I sure hope so because you'll go broke that way. Bob, working those long hours, produces twice as much.

I would hate to be judged on my hours worked. Sometimes I am less efficient than others and have to work more hours, sometimes I am more efficient and have to work less. I have generally been salary, generally been expected to work enough to get my work done, and generally been paid for the getting work done.
Now, if I were a paper pusher then the hours worked would be a good metric. If I were a check out person at walmart then the hours worked would be a good metric. But hours worked has never seemed

She hates to be reminded of the fact that she can't be working more then 6 hours a day. Yet she has a way of making sure that all my surplus hours are carefully filled in with me doing extra tasks like grocery shopping, going to the doctor with the kids etc... She get's to appreciate both sides of the spectrum all in her advantage.

I applaud the author for trying to keep things even and dig into the numbers, but she missed two rather critical things.

The first thing she touched on was women staying in STEM. She dismisses this as personal choice and finding something 'more fulfilling', but most women I have talked to that dropped out of STEM did so more because of problems they encountered with coworkers and managers. They did not really want to leave the industry in order to take a lower paying job in another field, but they found treatment to be pretty bad and opportunities to be fairly restricted.

And that brings us to the second point, opportunities. While it is true that actual pay for the same job tends to be fairly even, advancement opportunities for women still tend to be pretty limited. The same quality of work is often praised more for a male then a female and men are generally seen more as 'management material' and 'leaders', while the same leadership behaviors in women are often dismissed as being 'bitchy'. Dominance is often rewarded in men and punished for women, which results in fewer women getting those higher paying jobs within the same organization.

Those are interesting hypotheses, but as you mention, the evidence in the article directly contradicts your first point. It would be interesting if you found a study or something better than your friends to support that point.

And let's be honest, who hasn't had lousy bosses and annoying coworkers? Those are reasons to find another company, not to change careers.

If we're going to go off anecdotal evidence, most of the women I've met who no longer do engineering have done so for personal (raising a family), career (joined politics) or academic (pursued PhD in Physics instead) reasons. You leave a job because of coworkers. You leave a career due to personal choice.

As for the rest of your post, I refer you to the last line of the article:

this perception is just one more factor discouraging women from entering the tech space.

but most women I have talked to that dropped out of STEM did so more because of problems they encountered with coworkers and managers.

Most of the men I know that have dropped out of STEM did so because of problems they encountered with coworkers and managers through out their careers. They got tired of the crap, but the stuck it out for a long time. From what you are saying, women don't stick it out as long. BTW, you don't mention what the problems were. Was it because the manager wanted her to work 60+ hours per week? Was it because she was expected to be available on vacation? Was it because she was expected to be on-call? Was it because the co-workers got tired of swapping shifts, on-calls, etc?

The same quality of work is often praised more for a male then a female

Really? do you have any evidence to back this up? Or, is it that you considered your work to be the same quality as your male counterparts and your boss didn't?

Your post is just you grasping at straws to justify your preconceived bias.

You can get months off whenever you want for any medical condition you or your family might have. It's called FMLA and your employer is required by law to respect it. You probably won't get paid, but you can't get fired either. Maternity leave is the same in a lot of (most?) places. You can use your sick leave if you have any, but then you are taking unpaid.

But you won't be put on Project X that delivers next quarter either. There are trade offs to life choices, and Women are definitely at a disadvantage in this area no matter what the stats and laws say.

Personally in my experience my tech job is well represented with women who make choices to take a laid back approach to work for this reason. Furthermore I report to 7 managers, 4 of which are women right on up to the highest level. I think there is room for both archetypes.